Today the Western world is controlled by secret international networks. It is clear how general elections can no longer change political decisions. The objectives of the networks can be seen in the newspapers, since the media are part of the networks.
The politicians are completely controlled by these networks, one factor being the need for good publicity to be reelected. The politicians closely follow the media agenda.
One of the few threats to the networks is strong leaders. They can sometimes oppose the press and form policy.
Whether Boris Johnson is a strong leader can be discussed. But in having to carry out Brexit, that the people had voted for, the allegiances were clear: The press supported the parliament and opposed Johnson as he tried to implement the result the referendum.
The press and weak leaders counteract strong leaders in an almost ridiculous way, calling them dictators or sometimes even insinuating they would “be like Hitler”. (F.ex Putin is democratically elected. Russians can also access Western anti-Putin websites, but Putin still gets elected.)
Two strong leaders are Trump and Putin.
1. Trump och Putin
Presidenterna Trump och Putin behandlas mycket negativt av svenska media. Amerikanska media har t.o.m. hotat Trump:
Globalists use conflict on many levels and areas, f.ex:
Between people. If people are put in power for false reasons (like being promoted to a post by a superior wishing conflict) they do not have the skill or motive to respond accurately and will create conflict.
In forums: Using rudeness and arguments against the person in order to cover up the real topic and bring down the discussion to troll level.
Between groups of people in order to divide and conquer, women and immigrants are f.ex. supported by MSM.
Between countries like in the Skripal drama. Both UK and Russia lose. As usual only war mongers win. In creating conflict both the participating parties often lose and only the superior part wishing a cold war wins. In this case the “Deep State” and US war machine are the winners in that cold war gives false motives for rearmament.
What is called fake news naturally depends in the definition. In 2003 “Weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq was fake news, but proven much too late to make much difference.
Reporters often say “we didn’t know” and add that they just never checked sources. That the drawings of chemical weapons, presented by Colin Powell in the UN were fake was pretty obvious to most people.
When news media oligarchs, politicians and paid social media administrators and trolls act together, they define the “truth” of the New World Order.